Steven Dennis, a Canadian aid worker for the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), was shot and taken hostage in Kenya in 2012. He suffered psychological injuries and sued the NRC. The court found the NRC liable as Dennis' employer for gross negligence, as security protocols were inadequate given known risks. Damages of $695,000 were awarded to Dennis. This case establishes that aid organizations have the same responsibilities as other employers to ensure staff security.

1. Steven Patrick Dennis v Norwegian Refugee Council (Oslo District Court, Deputy Judge Lena
Skjold Rafoss, 25 November 2015)
This was a claim for monetary compensation by Dennis, a Canadian citizen, and an aid worker for the
Stiftelsen Flyktninghjelpen (the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)). Dennis was shot and taken
hostage in Dadaab, Kenya on 29 June 2012. He was rescued four days later. Dennis subsequently
suffered depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and was unable to work. Dennis sued
the NRC for damages, was offered a settlement of $US514,000, which he refused, and went to trial.
The NRC is an independent, private foundation which operates as a worldwide aid organisation with
more than 5,250 employees in 25 countries, including countries in Africa, Asia, the Americas and
Europe. The foundation's head office is located in Oslo, Norway. The foundation is headed by a Board
of Directors, and the Board appoints the Secretary General. The Secretary General is responsible for
day-to-day management of the organisation's activities and reports to the Board of Directors.
The NRC has had an office in Nairobi, Kenya since 2006. The office in Nairobi has been NRC's
regional office for the Horn of Africa since 2011. In 2012, the regional office was responsible for
NRC's projects in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Yemen. Dadaab in Kenya’s North Eastern Province
on the border with Somalia is the site of a 500,000 person refugee camp established by the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 1991. The NRC has been present in the refugee camp in
Dadaab since 2006, and is one of 23 organisations that have operations there. It runs projects on
shelter, education, food security, water, sanitation and hygiene. In June 2012, it had a total of 120
staff in Dadaab, of which seven, including Dennis, were international aid workers.
Dennis signed an employment contract with the NRC on 20 July 2011. He was employed as a ‘Project
Manager Emergency Coordinator’ in Dadaab. The contract period was from 25 July 2011 to 24
October 2011, and was subsequently extended to 24 July 2012, with his position changed to that of
‘Area Programme Support Manager’ in Dadaab from 01 April to 24 July 2012. On 23 June 2012,
Dennis received an email stating that because of lack of funding, the NRC would not extend the
contract period beyond July 2012.
The security situation in Dadaab was perilous at the time. Kenya was in open conflict with Al
Shabaab, a terror organisation, which had made several attacks in Nairobi and at Dadaab. The NRC
hired a security adviser in Nairobi to perform a review of the security situation in Dadaab. In January
2012, she presented a report entitled ‘Context & Risk Analysis: Dadaab January 2012’. The report
pointed out weaknesses in the handling of security internally within the NRC, and contained a list of
recommended measures to improve the security situation. The report was updated in February 2012.
The security situation in Dadaab and the risk of kidnapping were mentioned in several other reports
considered in evidence by the court.
The then Secretary General of the NRC was to visit the Horn of Africa and Yemen in June 2012. She
also decided to visit Dadaab on 29 June. The security detail for her visit was inadequate as there was
no armed escort. As she was leaving one of the areas in a series of white vehicles clearly marked
with the NRC’s logo, the convoy was attacked by six armed men. Although the driver of her vehicle
managed to escape the situation and keep the Secretary General and three others safe, one other
driver was killed, another seriously wounded, and Dennis and four other staff members were also
shot. Dennis was shot in the thigh. He and three other staff members were then taken hostage by the
attackers and driven off. They were rescued by Kenyan authorities, as well as a private militia group
hired by the NRC, four days later. The usual post-trauma activities ensued. Several internal reports
were generated within the NRC, and reviewed semi-externally before being accepted by the Board.
In 2012, the NRC had insured its staff via travel insurance with Europeiske, personal injury insurance
with IF, and disability insurance with Norben. The insurance with Norben could provide a disability

2. pension up to the age of 67 years in the case of physical injury, but the insurance coverage was more
limited in the case of psychological injury. Dennis had received payments in the amount of NOK
477,405 ($US59,675) from Norben and NOK 588,102 ($US73,513) from IF. Dennis was on sick leave
with full salary for the remainder of the year 2012 in the amount of NOK 241,654 ($US30,207). The
NRC had also covered his legal expenses of NOK 60,000 ($US7,500) as well as expenses for
coaching in the amount of NOK 12,000 ($US1,500).
However, Dennis was dissatisfied with these payments, and sought better compensation through
court action. The court held that NRC was liable as an employer (at page 7 of the official English
translation):
Aid organizations are major employers with the same responsibility for their employees as
other employers. The case might give the impression that the NRC is not to have the same
employer’s liability because of its other good deeds. Employees must however know that their
employer covers their back with a satisfactory handling of their security and that they will be
taken care of if anything happens. A sound protection of employees will in the long run lead to
increased productivity. The experiences gathered from the rescue operation in the case at
hand have shown that it may be more costly to react after the fact than to prevent it from
happening. Security incidents also affect those who are to be aided, in that programs are
stopped or downscaled. Sound security for employees can prevent this, thus leading to more
persons being helped in the long run. The activities of aid organizations in other countries are
not subject to much government control. By way of comparison, if there had been any
fatalities or kidnapping at the head office in Norway, the authorities and the police would have
reacted with an inquiry and full investigation. The NRC must confront its culture with regard to
internal criticism. An external inquiry should have been performed. In this case, superiors
have blamed their subordinates for decisions that were made at higher levels of the system.
The security situation in Dadaab had deteriorated strongly from the autumn of 2011. The risk
level had been set to four. The next level is five, which entails evacuation. No other VIP visits
in Dadaab were carried out during that period. There had been several kidnapping incidents
and the risk of kidnapping was high.
The NRC was held to have been grossly negligent. Damages of $US695,000 were awarded (at page
11 of the official English translation):
The Court has concluded that the NRC is liable for compensation under the rule of employer’s
liability in section 2-1 of the Compensation Act. The Court has furthermore concluded that the
NRC acted with gross negligence and is liable pursuant to the rule of liability for the actions of
managing bodies. Consequently, the conditions for a compensation for pain and suffering are
satisfied pursuant to section 3-5 of the Compensation Act. The Court has concluded that
there is a causal relationship between the basis of liability and the injury.
Implications of this case
This decision from Norway has implications for all aid organisations, particularly in the light of the
recent refugee influx into Europe. This case is persuasive law, though not binding, throughout Europe.
In the US context, such a case could generate damages in the millions of dollars as the same
principle would apply that aid organisations are just ordinary employers with all the obligations that
apply thereby. The point is untested in Australia. Aid organisations should take from this case the
increased need for good intelligence on the ground, sound personnel policies, good safety and
security training for staff members, the use of experienced security and personal protection advisers,
and the need to open current operations to outside scrutiny. The Oslo court pointedly criticised the
NRC on all these issues.